Effect of Human Rights Law on UK Businesses - Essay Example

of the Effect of Human Rights Law on UK Businesses The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted in the UK in order to implement the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe. Its principal components are that the European Convention rights have been included in the national legislation. Further, any piece of legislation has to be interpreted in a manner that is compatible with these rights, moreover, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission have to be given precedence. In addition, the courts can proclaim that some piece of legislation is incompatible with this act. The effect of such declarations is to provide the government with an opportunity to introduce corrective legislation in parliament. The legitimacy of the legislation remains unaffected by such declarations. Finally, it is deemed to be unlawful for any public authority to contravene the convention rights and anyone who is rendered a victim as a consequence, can initiate appropriate proceedings (Lee). The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), and is directly applicable to state and public authorities. Moreover, in respect of private employers, violations due to commission or omission are evaluated according to the requirements of the Convention. All the judicial bodies, like courts and employment tribunal have to consider this Act while resolving disputes or hearing claims that relate to employers and employees. Some of the more relevant articles that are relevant are article 4, which forbids slavery or forced labour; article 8, which ensures the right to privacy and respect for family life; article 9 that guarantees freedom of religion, conscience and thought and article 14, which decries discrimination on the basis of sex, race, language, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc (Basic principles of Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 1998 and Disability Discrimination ). The Act discourages the sole use of application software in recruitment of employees. Such software has to complement and not supplant human judgement. A major change engendered by the act is that employers have to be more circumspect regarding the information that they attempt to obtain from their employees. In addition, they have been compelled to address matters such as the rationale behind such details and the personnel to whom such information will be disclosed and the reasons thereof (Basic principles of Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 1998 and Disability Discrimination ). Specifically section 55 of this act makes it a criminal offence to indulge in unauthorized access of personal and confidential data pertaining to employees. Moreover, this act permits workers to peruse their personal information and insist upon the correction of mistakes therein. The enforcement of such employee rights has been delegated to the office of the Information Commissioner and detailed guidelines have been set out in the Code of Practice in respect of the utilization of personal information in the employment relationship (Basic principles of Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 1998 and Disability Discrimination ). The Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts and employment tribunals to so interpret the law as to enforce the European Convention Rights. Moreover, it mandates that all public authorities have to discharge their duties in conformity with these rights. Further, organizations that perform public functions have to strictly ensure that these rights are not violated (The impact of the Human Rights Act on the workplace). In this context public authorities have been construed to include courts, tribunals, departments of the government, NHS trusts and local authorities. This act has empowered individuals to bring in legal action against such authorities in the event of their Convention rights being infringed (The impact of the Human Rights Act on the workplace). Some institutions perform both public as well as private functions. Some instances are colleges, universities and organizations like the British Broadcasting Corporation or the BBC. They are considered to be hybrid bodies and to the extent of their discharge of public functions they are deemed to be public authorities (The impact of the Human Rights Act on the workplace). Finally, private bodies are partnership firms and limited liability companies that perform commercial activities. If such bodies violate the act, the remedy is to compel the judicial bodies to act in compliance with the Convention. It is not possible to proceed directly in such cases (The impact of the Human Rights Act on the workplace). No public authority can discharge its official duties in a manner that violates the Convention rights; this is the specific content of section 6 of the act. Some of the more important examples of such authorities are ministers, governmental departments, local and health authorities, the Armed Forces and enforcement authorities like the police. None of their official duties are exempt from the requirements of the act. A major exception to this rule is provided by Parliament, which is not deemed to be a public authority (Cosgrove). Examples from the corporate sector, which were construed to perform public functions, were Railtrack, British Telecom and British Gas. The Convention ensures a fair deal for the corporations as well as the individuals, by ensuring a fair and unbiased trial. Moreover, the hearing is to be conducted before an independent and impartial tribunal. This assumes importance due to the fact that many of the corporations are controlled by organizations that are not independent and on several occasions corporate bodies are justified in legally proceeding against the controlling authority (Cosgrove). Article 11 of the Convention, empowers employees to constitute trade unions and in this manner encourages collective bargaining. The ECJ’s judgements in conjunction with Articles 8, 10 and 14 have had considerable effect on the relationship between employees and employers (Barrow). Some human rights are absolute in nature. They are contained in Article 3. Rights such as protection from torture have been described in considerable detail. This has enabled the judges to interpret them in cases that conflict with commercial or business interests (Article 3. Human Rights Act 1998). Article 9 protects the right to hold religious beliefs. Under this article, one can change one’s beliefs and enable a person to demonstrate through worship, teaching, practice and observance either in private or in public. Thus the right to hold religious beliefs is an absolute right. However, the right to display such religious beliefs is restricted and should be regulated by the law in order to maintain order in the society and in order to avert conflicts with individuals who hold divergent religious beliefs, in the interest of public safety and in the inters of public health. The right to manifest religious beliefs should not conflict with the freedom of others or their rights (Article 9. Human Rights Act 1998). The English case law reveals the fact that the English courts are reluctant to fully implement these rights. In addition, they show reluctance to protect the rights of employees’ in the event that they desire to practice religious beliefs. For instance, a Christian employee cannot seek the court’s intervention if he is being compelled to work on Sundays, in breach of the rights provided by Article 9. Similarly a Muslim teacher cannot convince the court that he was not permitted to attend weekly prayers during working hours (Article 9. Human Rights Act 1998). Under Article 10, no government authority can interfere with the dissemination of religious information and ideas since that Article protects the freedom to subscribe to individual religious opinions. However this right is not absolute in nature and it is regulated by legislations that seek to protect the rights of others (Article 10. Human Rights Act 1998). The term expression has wide range of application as it covers words, pictures, images and actions that are meant to express ideas and the presentation of information. For example, dress codes practiced by businesses depict the clear meaning of the term expression. It is essential to control the desire of employees who seek to express their beliefs, as well as the desire of the employers who seek to project a specific corporate image. The European Court of Justice had supported the right to express personal beliefs by wearing dress of one’s choice. At present, employers are required to satisfy employment tribunals that their dress code is essential to project their unique corporate image. Moreover, employers are also required to prove that their dress code would promote their business objectives. In such conflicts between corporate branding and religious freedom, the courts would uphold religious freedom rather than corporate branding. In contrast to this, if wearing a helmet in the premises of a business site is compulsory for employees in their genuine interests, then the Sikh employees cannot seek to avoid such a regulation on ground of religious freedom. The performance of an organization can be profoundly affected by this act. Corporate and companies can no longer afford to ride roughshod over their employees. Moreover, they have to pay greater heed to the needs of customers and members of the community. Despite, the apparent enhancement in cost by adopting such a procedure, there is definitely great benefit in acceding to the requirements of this act. Many a company has increased its profits, bettered its relations with its customers and employees and has attained a better name in the market place. Works Cited "Article 10. Human Rights Act 1998." "Article 3. Human Rights Act 1998." "Article 9. Human Rights Act 1998." "Article 9. Human Rights Act 1998." Barrow, Charles. INdustrial Relations Law. Cavendish Publishing, 2002. P.v. Basic principles of Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 1998 and Disability Discrimination . 12 December 2007 . Cosgrove, Tara. The Human Rights Act 1998 . October 2000. 12 December 2007 . Lee, Natalie. The Effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Taxation Policy and Administration . 2005. 12 December 2007 . The impact of the Human Rights Act on the workplace. October 2003. 12 December 2007 . Read More